An uncommitted reader of the British press would rapidly conclude that, on the issue of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union, there is an easily-drawn dividing line. Those who favour withdrawal are on the right in political terms; those who would retain membership are on the left.

Readers of the centre-left or liberal press would go further; coverage of the issue would suggest that the supporters of Brexit are not only right-wing, but ignorant, prejudiced, xenophobic, or just plain deranged. The possibility that there is a perfectly rational and moderate case for reconsidering our future in Europe, a case that is not only consistent with a left-of-centre stance, but actually required by it, is overlooked. The debate is all the poorer for it.

My own involvement with this issue goes back a long way. A s a new recruit to the Foreign Office in 1964, I worked on Common Market issues and later, from our Brussels embassy, I helped to organise the Wilson-Brown tour of Common Market capitals as part of a further attempt to have the Gaullist veto on our membership lifted.

By the time I returned to the UK in 1968, I was clear that the issue was not whether we should or could be part of Europe, since no one could doubt that we were historically, geographically, culturally, politically, and inevitably, an integral part of that entity, however defined. The question was not whether, but what kind of Europe?

I came to the realisation that what we were offered was not “ Europe” but a Franco-German deal guaranteeing free trade in manufactures to the Germans in return for subsidised agriculture to suit the French.

Joining “Europe” in 1972 represented for Britain a restriction of our trading opportunities and an abandonment of a rational and long-established trading pattern. It meant, through the Common Agricultural Policy, to whose costs Britain was and remains a major contributor, a substantial increase in food prices and therefore in domestic costs, making British manufactured goods more expensive. It also meant an end to preferential markets beyond Europe, and opened us up instead to direct competition from more efficient manufacturing rivals in a single European marketplace.

But have we not derived great advantage from our trade with the EU? Well, hardly. Let us put to one side the very large annual contribution we pay to the EU (a continuing burden, as it happens, on our balance of payments). We have now run a trade deficit every year since 1982, which was just as the full impact of EU membership took effect – not just a coincidence, since the greater part of that deficit is with the other members of the EU, and much of it arises in the trade in manufactured goods.

The result is that our manufacturing sector has shrivelled away, and our net investment in new manufacturing capacity is virtually nil. W e are of course solemnly warned that our EU partners will refuse to trade with us if we insist on a different and better Europe; but are they really going to turn their backs on a one-sided trade relationship that has been so much to their advantage?

The weakness of the case for continuing membership of the current arrangement is shown by the fact that it is almost always articulated in terms of rival pessimisms; we are constantly told that the burdens of membership are outweighed by the risks of being left out in the cold.

But we should take courage from the lessons of experience. Similar arguments led us to join the European Monetary System, which proved disastrous, and were then repeated in respect of the euro. Most people in Britain will offer daily thanks that we had the courage to reject those arguments and to stay out of the euro, and there is no reason to suppose that they have any greater weight in the current debate. Our trading partners in Europe need us at least as much as we are said to need them, as post-Brexit negotiations would surely demonstrate.

In any case, a decision in favour of Brexit would not mean, as is so often alleged, turning our backs on Europe. It would signal instead the opening of a new agenda, aimed at developing a better and more constructive Europe, and one with a greater chance of success.

A new Europe would not operate, as it has done since its inception, as a manifestation of free-market capitalism, serving the interests of big business rather than those of ordinary people. It would not impose a policy of austerity in thrall to neo-classical economic doctrine. It would not run a hugely diverse economy in terms of a monetary policy that suits Germany but no one else. It would not impose a political structure decided by a small elite, but would allow the pace of cooperation and eventually integration to be decided by the people of Europe as they and we became more comfortable with the concept of a European identity.

Martin Selmayr, chief of staff to EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, announced in a conference yesterday the democratic decision to leave the EU could be stopped.

Speaking in Brussels, Mr Selmayr said: “Brexit is bad, and it’s a stupid decision. The only people who can reverse it would be the British people and I am not a dreamer, I am a realist. Brexit will happen on March 29, 2019.”

The German lawyer added that it would be “arrogant of us” to say the EU could force a reversal to happen.

The comments come after the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said he needed to "teach" Britons what leaving the EU means, as voters didn't know what leaving the single market meant.

He later backtracked to say he meant Brexit was an "occasion to explain single market benefits in all countries".

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker delivered his annual state of the union address on Wednesday, in which he laid out his grand vision for federalist Europe, and urged European Union governments to use economic recovery (i.e., Mario Draghi's nationalization of the bond market), the political weakness in the US and Brexit as "springboards" toward a closer union, built on an expanded euro zone and a pivotal role in world trade. The allegedly unintoxicated Juncker sketched out a vision of a post-2019 EU where 30 countries would be using the euro, with an EU finance minister running key budgets to help states in trouble.

Among the key proposals put forward by the EU Commission president were compulsory Euro membership for the remaining eight European states outside the bloc, for new countries to join the Schengen zone, plans for closer defensive cooperation leading to the creation of a European army in the next decade and easier ratification of EU-wide trade treaties with foreign powers. Tax and welfare standards would converge and Europe, not the United States, would be the hub of a free-trading world.

Juncker has also resurrected the idea of merging his own post with that of the President of the European Council, who currently represents the interests of its member state governments, saying it would be easier if “one captain was steering the ship.” Such as president would be chosen in an EU-wide vote. A powerful new EU-wide economy minister has also been touted, one which would have power to whip dissenters in line with a common EU vision.

In his best infomercial salesman immitation, Juncker urged Europeans to hurry, or else the generous offer may not last: “Now we have a window of opportunity, but it will not stay open for ever,” he said, emphasizing a need to move on from and even profit from the British vote to leave the bloc in 2019 according to Reuters.

Some promptly backed Juncker's blueprint: German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Juncker’s plan to build a closer European Union based on an expanded euro zone was largely in line with Germany’s vision for the bloc. The German also said that Juncker had discussed with Chancellor Angela Merkel his annual State of the EU speech in which he spoke of a vision of a post-2019 EU where some 30 countries would be using the euro.

“It is good that he is putting pressure (to expand the euro zone) but the preconditions (for joining the euro zone) must be fulfilled,” Schaeuble told the ARD broadcaster in an interview. “It is in fact so that EU countries who fulfill the preconditions become members of the euro under the Lisbon Treaty”. However, the German who in the summer of 2015 nearly kicked Greece out of the Eurozone, added that EU countries wishing to adopt the single currency should not do so before their public finances and economies are sound enough as they could face the fate of Greece, which had to be bailed out by the EU and IMF in 2010.

* * *

Desperate to put the Brexit humiliation in the rearview mirror, Juncker said that “we will keep moving on because Brexit isn’t everything, it is not the future of Europe," Brexit supporters promptly said his speech showed they were right to take Britain out of a bloc set on creating more powerful, central institutions. The most predictable opponent of the hour-long speech, met with stirring applause by a mostly zombified audience, was UK MEP Nigel Farage.

"The message is very clear: Brexit has happened, new steam ahead… More Europe in every single direction and all to be done without the consent of the people,” Farage told the floor.

“The way you’re treating Hungary and Poland already must remind them of living under the Soviet communists. All I can say is thank God we’re leaving because you’ve learned nothing from Brexit.

It wasn't just the Farage: Juncker's core proposal for countering what is known as a “multispeed Europe” by encouraging all states to join the euro and other EU structures was met resistance in both non-euro zone countries and potentially in Paris and Berlin, where the newly elected President Emmanuel Macron and about-to-be-re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel are readying their own plans.

Poland’s Eurosceptic ruling PiS party, which is embroiled in a bitter legal fight suggested the plan is optimistic in view of the ongoing crisis with migration, unemployment, stagnation and terrorism. “We need to get the EU’s house in order before there can even be a discussion on centralizing even further,” said Ryszard Legutko, a PiS MEP.

Opposition also came from members of the European parliament’s left-wing coalitions.

“When I listen to [Juncker’s speech] with the ears of many people who feel left behind by the current macroeconomic policies that we have, then I have my doubts because he still pushes for free trade deals that basically are tailor-made for multinationals,” Philippe Lamberts, of the Greens-European Free Alliance group told the Daily Express.

However, the most focused and principled attack on Juncker’s plans came from Harald Vilimsky, of Austria’s Freedom Party, which prompted Juncker to leave mid-speech, and once again demonstrated the deep splinters within the core of the Union, splinters which make the integration Juncker is seeking impossible.

“What Mr Junker wants de facto is to force the European union into a single state, and we know that the euro is not a success story. The second thing Mr Junker wants is de facto to actually get rid of all the internal borders, we see 10,000, 100,000, millions of African and Arabs are going to be coming to our continent,” said Vilimsky, who serves as the vice-chair of the Europe of Nations and Freedom party within the European Parliament.

“They talk about having a defense union, but no we don’t want that. What we want is Austrians, we’re a neutral country in Austria, we do not want to participate in the defense union. The right road for Europe can only be the road where there is more democracy left to the people, more democracy left to the citizens where people can vote whether or not they want to have Schengen maintained or not, whether they want their borders or not. The vote has to be left to the citizen.”

Aside from his traditional adversaries whose opposition was expected, what was more troubling is that Juncker's "grand vision" also appeared to get the cold shoulder from leaders of nominally pro-EU nations. “Juncker is a romantic. We all have our own style, but I am more pragmatic,” said Netherlands PM Mark Rutte in response to the speech, adding that those “too concerned with vision should visit an eye doctor.”

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was against creating an EU-super-president, tweeting “Let’s not mix roles and competences. Need European Council President as voice of member states."

Meanwhile, Germany and France, the two foundational powers in the union, are preparing to submit their own plans for EU reform by the end of 2017, and while their current leaders remain in favor of the EU, it is unlikely that either will endorse Juncker’s federalism without a mandate from their respective electorates.

In short, Juncker's speech like virtually everything else out of Brussels in recent years, was just more hot air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh_8fKcf970_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Quitting the EU will reinvigorate the British economy, creating a flood of extra revenue for the Exchequer that could cut taxes, boost public spending and slash the national debt.

The Budget for Brexit report was prepared by a 16-strong group of Eurosceptic economists, Economists for Free Trade.

It comes as the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals that the UK tax burden, at over a third of national income, is about to hit its highest level for nearly 50 years, when Labour’s Harold Wilson was in power in 1970.

Assuming Brexit occurs in the third quarter of 2020, the Economists for Free Trade group predicts that growth will improve as costs and unemployment fall, real wages will rise and higher output will drive down the exchange rate as new markets are sought by exporters.

The 37-page report rejects gloomy economic forecasts from the Treasury and Office for Budget Responsibility.

Outrage at EU 'plot to split Northern Ireland from UK' after Brexit
It is certain that the OBR will not make the positive assessment of Brexit that we have made

The Budget for Brexit report
It says: “It is certain that the OBR will not make the positive assessment of Brexit that we have made.

“It would seem that they, like the Treasury today, do not question the analysis of a clean Brexit made by the Treasury during the referendum, which asserted that the long-run effects would be substantially negative and the short-run effects would be a recession.”

The promise of a big boost to the economy over the next decade is based on a new economic forecast which factors in a fall in prices because of the scrapping of EU tariffs on goods from the rest of the world, improved export performance and an end to the annual EU subscription of £10billion.

The economists predict this will push growth up to nearly three per cent a year by the mid-2020s.

Over the first half of the 2020s, state borrowing and the national debt will fall.

Philip HammondGETTY
The report forecasts that the Chancellor could give away an extra £25bn a year over 2020-2025
The budget surplus is expected to reach £40billion a year by 2025, rising to around £90billion by the end of the decade.

The report forecasts that the Chancellor could prudently give away an extra £25billion a year over 2020-2025 in lower taxes and/or higher spending and still pay off debt.

From 2025 onwards he would have an extra £40billion to play with, making a total of about £65billion a year.

The research has been led by Margaret Thatcher’s former adviser, Professor Patrick Minford.

To illustrate the scale of the potential tax cut dividend from Brexit, the report says it would cost just £12billion by 2025 to reduce corporation tax by two per cent, the higher rate of income tax by two per cent and the additional rate by seven per cent.

Nations putting the EU in danger
Mon, October 23, 2017
Euroscepticism is rising across the continent
PLAY
Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism [AFP/Getty Images]
AFP/GETTY IMAGES1 of 7
Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism [AFP/Getty Images]

Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism Italy: Italy's populist Five Star Movement wants to ditch the euro and recently elected an ex-waiter, Luigi Di Maio as leader Germany: Eurosceptic AfD emerged as the country's third-biggest party, campaigning hard against Merkel's open-door stanceFrance: Marine Le Pen advocates abandoning the euro and curbing immigration while endorsing anti-Islamic policies Hungary: Viktor Orban (R), leader of the anti-immigration Right-wing Fidesz party, which is firmly opposed to further EU integration Netherlands: Geert Wilders' far-right Freedom Party wants to LEAVE the EU and BAN Islam Poland: President Andrzej Duda (R), leader of PiS, was elected in 2015 with policies largely focusing on anti-Islamic and anti-Russian concerns
This would leave another £13billion which could be spent, for instance, on the NHS.

With an extra £40billion of revenue resulting from fast post-Brexit growth after 2025, the report calculates that corporation tax could be cut by a further three per cent, the higher rate of tax by another two per cent and the standard rate by two per cent.

This would cost around £20billion leaving a further £20billion to raise public spending while keeping debt at a prudent level of below 60 per cent of national output.

Professor Minford said: “When Britain leaves the EU it is essential the right policies are in place to ensure our economy thrives and seizes the economic opportunities of Brexit.

“The Chancellor and the Treasury play a central role in this and must show ambition and leadership. Regrettably, since before the referendum the Treasury and the OBR have been consistently negative about a post-Brexit economy. The Chancellor must use this Budget to set out a positive vision of a Britain thriving outside the EU.

“We have set out a Budget for Brexit that would provide huge tax cuts for hard-working people and cuts to corporation tax while at the same time reducing the debt to GDP ratio and enabling spending rises.

“We urge the Chancellor to set out a Budget that will take full advantage of the opportunities Brexit brings.”

Related articles
'Put a sock in it!' Jeremy Corbyn mocked in hilarious BBC sketch show
German MEP rages at Barnier for 'unfair' Brexit strategy towards UK
Guy Verhofstadt meeting showed MP Britain MUST leave EU with no deal_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

West Midlands MEP Bill Etheridge said the suggestion of a team comprising EU members was the subject of "serious" debate behind closed doors in Brussels and Strasbourg.

The UKIP MEP said Brussels chiefs would like like an EU team enter the 2036 Games, the 100th anniversary of the Berlin tournament, which was opened by Adolf Hitler.

Mr Etheridge said the move was out the latest attempt by EU leaders to “destroy national identity”.'

'Brexiteers shocked': Remainer Nick Clegg ‘to receive knighthood’
And he claimed it was partly driven by envy of Great Britain’s success in Rio and London.

He said: “There have been quite a lot of conversations about it among other MEPs and it was being taken quite seriously by some of them.

"They were using the word solidarity, which tends to be code for ever closer union.

EU chiefs are said to be envious of Team GB success
“It speaks to their plan to create a united states of Europe.

"I'm almost certain there was some jealousy at Britain's success in 2012 and 2016 and they want a piece of our success.

"It's a crazy EU effort to destroy national identity.”

The secret discussions have only been held informally so far and no official approach has been made to tournament organisers, The Telegraph reported.

Team GB finished the 2016 Rio Games second in the medal table behind the US, having won 27 golds.

Germany came fifth with 17, France seventh with 10 and Italy ninth with eight golds.

British success followed the 2012 Games where 29 gold medals were won on home soil, the highest of any European nation.

News of trying to bring the bloc’s members together for the world’s biggest sporting event comes at the end of a year where key Brussels figures have launched plans for a much tighter union.

European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker and French leader Emmanuel Macron have led the charge, with proposals for a joint budget and EU army.

Nigel Farage reacts to 'delusional' State of the Union debate
Play Video

In a landmark speech in September, Mr Juncker set out a vision for a united states of Europe.

He said he wanted more financial unity across the bloc, headed by a new finance ministry while transforming the eurozone’s bailout powers into a European Monetary Fund.

Mr Juncker also wants every member state to join the Euro.

Brexiteers pointed to the speech as a demonstration of why the UK was right to leave the bloc.

Among high-profile critics of the approach was ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage who raged: "I think Europe is about diverse nations and cultures.

“It makes it the most fascinating continent on Earth and provided that all democratically run, they will be at peace.

"I've seen time and again the peoples of Europe in referendums reject deeper integration, reject the European constitution just to be wilfully ignored by Brussels who have either made them vote again or ignored them and gone round the back of them."

The poll's findings suggest that most Scots do not want another referendum on independence despite the EU vote
(Photo: Getty) Chris Green 0:01 Saturday July 30th 2016
A clear majority of Scots want the country to stay part of a post-Brexit UK rather than becoming independent and remaining part of the EU, an opinion poll has found. The results of the survey, carried out a month after the result of the European referendum, calls into question Scotland’s appetite for a re-run of 2014’s vote on independence. “The arguments for Scotland remaining a part of the UK are just as compelling as they were in 2014 – in or out of the EU” Lord Dunlop The YouGov poll found that 46 per cent of Scots would prefer to remain part of a post-Brexit UK, while only 37 per cent favoured of breaking up the Union and being allowed to remain in the EU. The results will be seen as a blow to the SNP’s hopes of securing independence for Scotland following the UK’s decision to leave the EU last month, which came despite 62 per cent of Scots voting to remain.
IndyRef2? Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, warned in the aftermath of the result that a second referendum on Scottish independence was now “highly likely” as voters would be furious at the prospect of being dragged out of the EU against their will. The survey also found that the result of the EU vote has not had much of an impact on people’s opinions on independence, with a majority of people continuing to favour remaining part of the UK. Only 47 per cent said they want Scotland to become an independent country, while 53 per cent want to keep the Union intact, the poll of more than 1,000 Scottish adults found. The survey also showed that more Scots would rather be part of a post-Brexit UK with no access to the EU’s single market than leave the Union to secure continued free trade, with 40 per cent favouring the former scenario and only 34 per cent the latter. “Inevitably, some will suggest that the high-water mark of Scottish independence has now passed, especially as it was thought that leaving the EU might persuade No voters to change their minds and vote against the Union,” said Joe Twyman, YouGov’s head of political and social research. “However, the situation is, naturally, more complicated than that. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about what the UK’s relationship with the EU will look like…once precise details of Brexit are hammered out it could change the whole context of the independence debate.” ‘Divisive constitutional debate’ The Scottish Conservatives said the poll’s findings “completely exposes the SNP’s post-Brexit hyperbole” and called on Ms Sturgeon’s party to “get back to the day job, instead of agitating for yet another independence drive”. Scotland Office Minister Lord Dunlop added that another “divisive constitutional debate” was not want the country wanted. “The arguments for Scotland remaining a part of the UK are just as compelling as they were in 2014 – in or out of the EU,” he said. “The Prime Minister has been very clear that we are going to make a success of Brexit, and the focus now needs to be on collaborative working with the Scottish Government as ‘Team UK’ to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK.” However, the SNP pointed out that support for independence had risen since YouGov’s last poll on the subject, suggesting that No voters were reconsidering their views in light of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. “In light of the overwhelming vote to remain in the EU, it is right that the Scottish Government explores every option to protect our relationship with and place in the EU – including the option of another independence referendum if that is what it takes,” said SNP business convener Derek Mackay.

_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Martin Schulz, who hopes to enter a coalition with Angela Merkel and become Berlin’s second most powerful figure, said any member states who refuse to join his new superstate must leave.

He called for a new treaty to formally convert the EU into the United States of Europe, along the lines of the United States, though bizarrely claimed this was “no threat” to individual countries.

The socialist leader, who humiliatingly led his party to its worst ever showing in September’s general election, is now attempting to stitch together a coalition deal with Mrs Merkel.

Mr Schulz a bombastic former MEP and EU Parliament president who quit his Brussels job to take on the German chancellor, has never hidden his federalist ambitions.

His proposals would create federal Europe, which can act together in policy in areas including domestic and foreign security, tax and monetary affairs and asylum and international development.

In a conference speech he warned European values were being systematically undermined in countries like Poland and Hungary and that the EU needed more powers to uphold its laws.

Afterwards he tweeted in English: “I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition.

“A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.”

In reality his plan would certainly be vetoed by the other states, who have to agree unanimously on any treaty change, and would be extremely unlikely to get past Mrs Merkel herself.

Commentators said that his desire for a United States of Europe is not even that popular within his own party, which is heavily europhile, and stands virtually zero chance of success.

Nonetheless, the remarks will heighten the fears of eurosceptics who suspect the EU is heading towards an ever more federalist model in light of Jean-Claude Juncker’s deeply integrationist State of the Union speech.

Yesterday the Commission unveiled new plans for a beefed up eurozone, with its own finance minister, whilst plans for an EU army are also rapidly progressing towards reality.

Countries that are in the European Union
UNITED KINGDOM, 1 of 28 member states in the EU
AUSTRIA, 1 of 28 member states in the EU

Pieter Cleppe, an analyst at the Open Europe think-tank, said the proposals were jaw-dropping at a time of heightened euroscepticism and added: “Martin Schulz has become the EU's worst enemy.”

Meanwhile former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who has consistently warned of plans for a United States of Europe, mocked: “If this is the route they are taking, it could be a very small European Union.”

Warnings about the possibility of an EU superstate featured prominently in the referendum campaign, with David Cameron securing Britain a special opt-out from ‘ever-closer union’.

EU leaders have seized upon the opportunity of Brexit to push forward with ambitious integration plans in a number of areas amid widespread dissatisfaction about how the project is run.

RELATED ARTICLES
Italian general Claudio Graziano to lead EU's military committee
EU President demands MORE foreign aid cash to undo Brexit damage
Shock warning from German professor over EU superstate plans_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Can't make their mind up, first it was PESCO, Permanent Structured Alliance, which didn't last long, now it's European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI

U.S. seeks "robust involvement" in EU defence pact - sources
Andrea Shalal
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 / 9:56 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S government has told EU states that it and other non-EU NATO allies should play a key role in a European defence pact, diplomatic sources said on Tuesday.

The message, sent to defence and foreign ministries, was meant to underscore Washington’s worries that the pact could duplicate NATO efforts and possibly shut out U.S. arms makers from future European defence contracts, the sources told Reuters.

Twenty-five EU governments launched the agreement in December to fund, develop and deploy armed forces together, ending the squandering of billions of euros by splintered defence policies and reducing Europe’s heavy reliance on Washington.

The message, sent in a diplomatic cable earlier this month, said Washington supported the plan, but expected the “robust involvement” of NATO and particularly non-EU members of the trans-Atlantic defence alliance, the sources said.

“The two main concerns are that there’s no duplication with NATO and that non-EU allies are not cut out of competitions for future weapons,” one of the sources told Reuters on Tuesday.

“If the EU countries are joining forces to make acquisitions that are ultimately going to be used in the NATO context, there should be fair and open competitions,” the source added.

France and Germany have already announced plans to develop a next-generation European fighter jet and Germany is leading an effort to develop a new European drone.

“IRONIC”

One European official said the U.S. concern about being shut out was “a bit ironic,” given U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, and the problems that European firms have historically had breaking into the U.S. weapons market.

The U.S. message echoed remarks made by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month in which he highlighted the importance of non-EU allies in paying for European defences.

Once Britain leaves the EU, he said, 80 percent of NATO defence spending will come from non-EU allies.

The sources said Washington also told EU states in a separate cable that it planned to boost funding for increased U.S. military exercises and training in Europe by $1.7 billion to $6.5 billion in the fiscal 2019 year beginning on Oct. 1.

The initiative, initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative, was launched in 2014 by then U.S. President Barack Obama in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. It has since been renamed the European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI.

The cable, sent out late last week and early this week, said the U.S. was living up to its obligations to ensure the defence of all NATO members in what one of the sources called “a subtle prod to other allies to increase their own funding.”

Trump has been pressing European countries to increase their defence spending and honour agreements to move towards spending 2 percent of economic output on the military by 2024.

NATO expects eight of NATO’s 29 members to meet the target in 2018, growing to at least 15 in 2024.

Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Andrew Heavens
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

US-Hungarian Billionaire philanthropist George Soros faces new accusations of interfering in British politics after announcing he’s supporting a bid to push for a second Brexit referendum within a year.
Speaking during a summit organized by the European Council of Foreign Relations think tank, the US-Hungarian financier said that the EU is facing an “existential crisis,” but that Britons should nonetheless be given the chance to vote again on any final Brexit deal and whether to stay in the EU on current terms.

Soros has been heavily criticized over his donations of over £800,000 ($1,062,000) to pro-EU campaigns. The pledges included £400,000 to Best for Britain, a campaign group founded by Gina Miller, who successfully defeated the government over its triggering of Article 50 – the letter officially kicking off the Brexit process – without parliamentary consent.

“Ultimately it’s up to the British people to decide what they want to do. It would be better, however, if they came to a decision sooner rather than later. That’s the goal of an initiative called the ‘Best for Britain,’ which I support. Best for Britain fought for, and helped to win, a meaningful parliamentary vote which includes the option of not leaving at all.

“This would be good for Britain but would also render Europe a great service by rescinding Brexit and not creating a hard-to-fill hole in the European budget. But the British public must express its support by a convincing margin in order to be taken seriously by Europe.”

The billionaire has already come under intense scrutiny after former UKIP leader Nigel Farage warned MEPs in Brussels over Soros’ “truly extraordinary” influence on Brexit. The comments were made after it emerged Soros injected $18 billion (£12.97 billion) into the Open Society fund.

“I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history,” Farage said in the European Parliament last year. “When we are talking about offshore money, when we are talking about political subversion, when we are talking about collusion, I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place.”

Stopping immigration has never made salaries higher or public services better. That’s why Labour governments have responded to complaints about an ‘immigration problem’ by tackling the root cause of dissatisfaction

Chuka Umunna @chukaumunna 23 hours ago

Last week in the House of Commons, there was the biggest rebellion of this parliament by MPs of both main parties. It was on a vote on whether we should continue to participate in the EU’s single market through being part of the European Economic Area (EEA).

In spite of this Labour MPs were whipped by our leadership to abstain on this issue, whereas the government whipped their MPs to vote against. Seventy-six Labour MPs (more than half of our backbenchers) defied the whip – myself included – to vote for the UK to stay in the EEA. We were joined by the Conservatives Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke, with another 11 Tory MPs signalling their support for the EEA by abstaining on the issue instead of following the whip’s instructions to vote against.

However, 15 Labour MPs actually voted against the UK remaining in the EEA. This is a small minority – less than 6 per cent of our MPs – but their views cannot and should not be dismissed.

A few commentators suggested the division on the Labour side fell along geographical lines, with London MPs in favour of staying in the EEA and non-London MPs against. But this is not supported by the numbers. Fifty-three of the 76 Labour MPs voting for the EEA actually represent seats outside of London, and a majority of those 76 represent seats in Leave-voting regions.

A number of objections are raised against the EEA in Commons debates by MPs in both main parties. Some say that if we stay in the EEA, we will somehow have blocked “the will of the people” – even though nothing like that was put on the Brexit referendum ballot paper. It seems that some commentators are determined to tell us all Brexit voters specifically wanted to come out of the single market and the customs union. In reality, we have absolutely no idea where they stand on these issues apart from the fact that they did think leaving the institution of the EU was a good idea – and that could have been for a number of very different reasons.

Yet none of the objections I’ve heard have gone to the heart of where most concern lies about the EEA: immigration and the continuation of some form of free movement, a requirement of participating in the EEA.

I am the son of an immigrant and represent a constituency where the majority of families are of immigrant stock. But many of the communities Labour represents are the opposite, which is why more than half the seats we hold voted to leave the EU. That doesn’t mean that people are xenophobic or racist, but there is concern about the levels of immigration to certain places and, as I’ve said before, we cannot duck or ignore it. Honesty is required: views are just as strong, if not stronger, in relation to non-EU immigration as they are in relation to EU immigration.

There are parallels between the discontent in some traditional Labour-voting areas about EU immigration and the same discontent regarding Commonwealth countries in the 1960s. There was, after all, a form of free movement from the Commonwealth until 1971 – my own father took advantage of that.

I have never denied that immigration can pose both economic and cultural challenges to communities, but it need not be this way if we deal with it in the right way. A reform package of policies to better manage migration from the EU could include things like action to prevent the undercutting of wages by immigrants, removing newcomers after nine months if they fail to find a job, and putting in place a bigger infrastructure fund to help mitigate the impact of migration on local communities.

I would add that we need to do far more to help integrate immigrants into local communities, as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Integration, which I chair, argues in our report Integration not demonisation. My father was so successful in this regard that he married an English woman and had mixed heritage children.

We can do all of these things now while we are still in the EEA because of our EU membership.

But what are the real underlying causes of concern about immigration? Not enough decent, affordable housing. A shortage of school places. An NHS in crisis. Not enough well-paid and decent jobs. These problems will not disappear or be mitigated if we leave the EEA. They will get worse because there will be less revenue going to the Exchequer to pay for these things.

The underlying problems we have are no more the fault of European immigrants now than they were the fault of Commonwealth citizens back in the 1960s. And make no mistake: people were saying exactly the same things in traditional Labour-voting areas about the Windrush generation, South Asian immigration and the likes of my father being the cause of those problems way back then. Ending Commonwealth free movement then and ending EU free movement now did not and will not solve these problems, and deep down we know it.

In the Commons debate on the 1971 Immigration Act which restricted Commonwealth immigration, Labour’s then shadow home secretary Jim Callaghan said, “Decent housing, decent schooling, good amenities in the areas where they are most needed… in my view, this is the way, rather than by a bill like this in which we should deal with the problem of the immigrant, if indeed it is a problem of the immigrant.”

That is why Labour governments, including that of Callaghan when he became prime minister, have always principally addressed these problems by properly funding the NHS, by building more affordable homes, investing in our schools, introducing a minimum wage and so on.

By acquiescing in the fiction that immigrants are ultimately the problem and that these underlying issues will be resolved if EU free movement ends, all we do is put British jobs at risk – which would be rather odd for a party that claims to represent the interests of “labour”.

Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

The UK's plan envisages a free trade area between the UK and EU
The British government has published its long-awaited White Paper on its future relationship with the EU.

The plan envisages a free trade area between the UK and EU based on a "common rule book" for the production and sale of goods, as well as for agriculture and fisheries products.

The UK would develop its own services regime, but would seek reciprocal access to the EU financial markets.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said the proposal "is delivering on the vote of the British people", following comments by US President Donald Trump claiming he was unsure whether the different route Mrs May is taking fulfilled the wishes of the people.

The paper proposes a customs partnership that London claims will allow the UK to maintain frictionless trade with the EU, and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The White Paper states that the future trade arrangements will mean that the so-called backstop - or insurance policy to avoid a hard border - will never need to come into effect.

The paper says that disputes over how the common rule book should be interpreted would be handled by a Joint Committee and arbitration between both sides.

Britain's proposal for a Brexit deal received a guarded welcome in Brussels, with the European Parliament's delegation saying the wide-ranging draft went in the direction it wanted.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said in a tweet that the paper will be analysed and looks "forward to negotiations with the #UK next week."

Read More:

UK's Brexit plan a 'real blow' to City of London
White Paper on the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU
'A good week for Brexit' - Coveney welcomes clear UK position
Senior UK ministers rally round May following resignations
More Brexit stories

The paper, titled 'The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union', envisages a close future relationship on a range of areas, from the economic sphere, to security, data, science and innovation.

The actual degree to which the UK will be subject to ongoing EU rules and regulations remains the subject of bitter debate within the Conservative Party.

The 98-page document envisages the UK remaining in a number of EU agencies, such as those which government aviation, chemicals and medicines.

However, the EU may frown on third countries being full members of such agencies, especially as they are operated under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The UK will also seek to remain close to the EU's energy and transport markets. In particular, membership of, or some kind of alignment with, the EU's energy market is seen as vital for the continued operation of the Single Electricity Market which operates on the island of Ireland.

The White Paper acknowleges this.

London also seeks to develop a common rule book for state aid and competition law, one of the most tightly regulated aspects of EU membership.

In order to ensure that the UK will not seek to undercut the EU economy after Brexit, the paper proposes "non-regression" clauses that would govern the environment, employment and social rights.

The common rule book would be legislated for in the UK by parliament and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

On the continuing negotiations between the EU and UK on the Northern Ireland backstop, British sources insist that the White Paper effectively removes the need for the backstop to be ever needed.

Sources say that the Temporary Customs Arrangement (TCA), which was published on 7 June, remains the UK's preferred alternative to the European Commission's version of the backstop, which was enshrined in the draft Withdrawal Agreement as a protocol.

The TCA envisages the backstop being applied UK wide, so as to avoid any checks on the Irish Sea, as well as avoiding a hard land border. London also wants the backstop to be time-limited, coming to an end at the end of 2020.

Both the Irish Government and the European Commission Task Force have dismissed any notion that the backstop would be time-limited, with the EU's chief negotiator insisting that the backstop should be applied to Northern Ireland only.

The Government and EU member states have also rejected the TCA since it did not address the issue of regulatory alignment and the need to avoid checks on whether or not goods and agri-food products comply with a huge range of EU rules.

British officials, however, say that the question of regulatory alignment is dealt with in the White Paper by way of the free trade area, combined with a common rulebook on standards.

Officials acknowledge, however, that the backstop remains the subject of a parallel negotiation between the UK and EU.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has said the British Government's position on Brexit has become much more credible following the publication of its White Paper today._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Theresa May with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron CREDIT: AFP
Gordon Rayner, political editor 9 AUGUST 2018 • 9:30PM
EU leaders are considering a compromise over Brexit that would allow Britain access to the single market for goods while ending freedom of movement of people.

In the first sign of divergence between EU member states and Brussels’ chief negotiator Michel Barnier, leaders are expected to sound out Theresa May about a compromise at a summit in Salzburg next month.

However, the deal would come at a price, as it would involve Britain accepting all future EU environmental and social protections - which Eurosceptics say is “not Brexit”.

Downing Street is understood to be cautiously optimistic that leaders of the EU27 countries are finally engaging with Mrs May’s Chequers plan for Brexit after Mr Barnier had previously dismissed it as unworkable.

The European Commission declined to comment on the plan, but did not deny that member states “may be discussing it”.

Until now, Mr Barnier has insisted that Britain cannot “cherry pick” parts of EU membership, such as access to the single market, while rejecting others, such as freedom of movement.

However, member states are considering allowing Britain to remain in the single market for goods if it is prepared to tie itself to EU standards on environmental and social protections in perpetuity.

The Chequers plan involves signing up to a “common rulebook” with the EU but allows for Britain to diverge from Brussels in future if Parliament decides to.

A senior Whitehall source said: “The noises coming out of Brussels this week suggest some positive engagement with the Brexit White Paper. That needs to translate into positive discussions in the negotiating room.”

Tory Brexiteers say Mrs May has already conceded too much ground with her Chequers plan, and warned that promising to accept future EU rule changes would turn Britain into a “vassal state”.

Read the book "the Great Deception", a very detailed history of the EU starting after World War1. It was a British French idea that the EU does no longer explain. The plan was to hide its destiny from people and start with simple trading. A federation of Europe, like America. The UK government would be just like a European state with virtually no power at all. Unlike Hitler's idea to create a government in Europe controlled by Germany alone, thus keeping Sovereign States. VAT taxes are forced on all EU countries and the UK VAT almost is primarily collected to pay for inefficient French farmers, yet they own half the tractors in Europe! I think the UK pays more than any other country

Review
A superb history of the EU and of Britain s relationship with it ... every MP, every senior civil servant, every journalist with any claim to understanding the current state of the country, should read it. --Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday

A tour de force ... a fascinating forensic history of the seen and unseen forces which have brought us to the present point --Spectator

A real page-turner --Church of England Newspaper

About the Author
Christopher Booker writes for the Sunday Telegraph and is the bestselling author of The Seven Basic Plots, The Real Global Warming Disaster, The Great Deception and Scared to Death. He was the founding editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye.

The briefing paper acknowledges that Britain would in time become little more than a puppet state of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling EU – then called the EEC.

But, instead of sounding alarm bells, the authors of the paper warn ministers to hide the truth from the British public.

And, damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

What the writers – famously championed by Mr Heath – could not have envisioned was that the British public would see though the audacious abuse of power and vote to LEAVE Europe in a fiercely contested referendum half a century later.

To some critics the lie is at the heart of the Brexit battle faced by Theresa May as she prepares to fae her embattled delegates at Tory Party Conference, in Birmingham next week.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, even suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

Bizarrely FCO 30/1048 reads more like an educated anarchists’ guide to crushing Britain’s political standing on the world stage than the sober briefing of civil service pillars of the British establishment.

Faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance
The language suggests repeatedly that the British people are too stupid to grasp the implications of joining the EEC (which became the EU in 1993) and that indeed this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it.

Again and again they assert that Britain’s parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, there will be a United States of Europe with a single currency.

Here we read between the lines of the most damning paragraphs of the FCO 30/1048 and explain what the writers really meant:

The paper starts with a academic discussion of sovereignty – arguing that sovereignty is not necessarily a good thing.

By page five we are left in no doubt as to the author’s position on sovereignty as he writes:

“Sovereignty is a technical concept with in many ways only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy.”

And after some rambling paragraphs about the Queen having sole sovereign law making power in Britain he cuts to the chase saying:

“Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.”

The first acknowledgement that Britain was about to transfer significant powers to Europe.

A few paragraphs later he confirms this saying: “we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none.”

And further the authors not only concede the handing over of power but that this is a no-going back deal:

“we shall be accepting that the Commission will jointly represent the member states, who to that extent will have their individual international negotiating powers limited; and we shall in various fields be accepting a wide degree of coordination of our policy with that of the rest of the Community. All of this we shall be accepting “for an unlimited period,” with no provision for withdrawal.

In a clumsy attempt to diminish the massive changes to the way Britain is governed the writer says: “Overall it is clear that membership of the Community in its present form would involve only limited diminution of external sovereignty in practice.”

But just a page later the author makes it crystal clear that it is just a matter of time before Europe starts eating away at Britain’s ability to govern itself saying: “The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples'.”

Paragraph 12(I) is one of the most damning – as it clearly details the way in which EU law will trample over British law. But that this must be kept from the common knowledge of the British people.

He writes: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (i.e. without any further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws). Community law operates only in the fields covered by the Treaties, viz, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour; services and capital; transport; monopolies and restrictive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal and steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this considerable range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law.

“Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have required us to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation.”

Clause III adds with shocking prescience that the seismic legal shift would in effect be creating a federal law in a United States of Europe. And this was 46 years ago, back in 1971.

He writes: “The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.

"(iv) The Law Officers have emphasised that in accepting Community Law in this country we shall need to make it effective as part of a new and separate legal order, distinct from, but co-existing side by side with, the law of the United Kingdom. They have referred to the basic European Communities Treaty provisions as amounting “in effect to a new body of ‘Federal’ statute law.”

Next he deals with the reality of the homogenising of British life into European life and says:

“In lay terms we may say that if Britain joined the Community there would be many implications for both external and internal (particularly parliamentary) sovereignty. Some of these would be wholly novel, and the general effect particularly in the longer turn would be of more pervasive and wide-ranging change than with any earlier commitments. Largely this is because the Community treaties when drawn up were seen as arrangements not merely for collaboration but for positive integration of large parts of the economic and social life of the Member States. As a result the conventional theoretical line dividing internal from external affairs has become blurred, a process which as we have seen is already advancing with the development of transnational economic activity.”

The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

He writes:

15.(i) National Identity: "We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most nations.

"When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry to the Community, people may feel that it is this “Britishness” that is at stake. Hence Mr Rippon’s pointed question “are the French any less French?” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is the large measure of dislike and mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britain. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

"(iii) Remoteness of the Bureaucracy: It is generally acknowledged that in modern industrialised society the impersonal and remote workings of the Government bureaucracy are sources of major anxiety and mistrust. The operations of democracy seem decreasingly fitted to control the all-embracing regulatory activities of the Civil Service. In entry to the Community we may seem to be opting for a system in which bureaucracy will be more remote (as well as largely foreign) and will operate in ways many of which are already determined and which are deeply strange to us. This bureaucracy is by common consent more powerful than compared with the democratic systems of the Community than is ideal. Yet the way to remedy this balance without reducing the Community to a mere standing association for negotiation between national Ministers is by strengthening the Community’s democratic processes which in turn means more change and more “loss of sovereignty.”

The following paragraph iv is so damningly anti-British it reads like the ramblings of some pseudo Guy Burgess type Oxbridge communist attacking, as it does, Britain’s idea she has any power on the world stage as fantasy.

He writes:

"(iv) National Power: As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power. Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the form of the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome emphasise the merging of national interests.”

In a section that could have been written 46 minutes ago rather than 46 years ago he deals with the inevitable – and welcome – single currency, and the prospect of an EU army.

He writes: “…but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. This sort of grouping would bring major politico/economic advantages but would take many years to develop and to win political acceptance. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”

Towards the end the anti-British, pro-Europe rhetoric is in full flow, accepting Britain’s notion of itself as an independent state would be completely dismantled. Britain would be a European state, it’s Parliament neutered.

"19...then over a wide range of subjects (trade, aid, monetary affairs and most technological questions) Community policies toward the outside world would be common or closely harmonised. Although diplomatic representation would remain country by country its national role would be much diminished since the instructions to representatives would have been coordinated among member states. By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete. This is a far distant prospect; but as members of the Community our major interests may lie in its progressive development since it is only when the Western Europe of which we shall be a part can realise its full potential as a political as well as economic unit that we shall derive full benefits from membership."

"20. …of the functions of the Community could probably only take place with concomitant development of the institutions of the Community. It is hard to envisage the necessary decisions being taken under the present organisation of the Community; more effective decision-making at Community level would either require majority voting on an increasing range of issues in the Council or stronger pressures to reach quick decisions by consensus. In either case the role of the Commission would become more important as the Community became responsible for the regulation of wider areas of the internal affairs of the member states and this would in turn increase the need to strengthen the democratic institutions of the Community, including perhaps a directly elected Parliament. In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of 'parliamentary sovereignty'."

FCO 30/1048 even predicts Michel Barnier’s current attempt to bully and punish Britain for having the temerity to leave the EU saying member states would probably nominally have the ability to leave until about the year 2000, but such a move would have increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector.”

And in yet another sideswipe at the British public he says it will be important for politicians to deal with – or cover-up – “anxieties about British power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world.”

And the pressing need to cover-up the realities goes on in the next paragraph where he writes:

“After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community. This counsel of perfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable if they are put in a Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms of general and Community-wide interest and, on the other, blaming membership for national problems is real and important.”

Finally, in conclusion, the writers concede openly that Parliament will be made effectively redundant saying:

This edition of the program is about the Brexit crisis. PM May is likely to receive a no confidence vote due to the concerns of the many including the Labor leader and the Scottish first minister regarding the fate of the agreement.

07:24 16.11.2018 (updated 10:23 16.11.2018)
Sputnik spoke to David Coburn of UKIP for his take on Theresa May's Brexit deal which she presented to the Houses of Parliament today, after a dramatic day at Westminister when we saw the resignations of one minister after another.

Sputnik: What do you make of the deal that Theresa May presented to the House of Commons this morning?

David Coburn: It's the worst deal that the world has ever known — the worst deal in the world, utterly ridiculous. It's worse than being in the European Union, it has none of the advantages and all of the downside. No-one in their right mind would sign up to this. She's betrayed the country and she's betrayed her party I believe. And she's misled her cabinet who are resigning in droves and I don't blame them frankly — it's appalling.

Sputnik: What chances do you think there are of the Houses of Parliament voting for this deal?

David Coburn: I think you're seeing the demise of the Conservative Party — it's falling apart at the seams. For years there's been a fratricidal pact over the European Union and finally, the knives have come out — this is it. I was surprised that David Mundell — who made a big play of being a Unionist (personally I don't think they are Unionists the conservatives in Scotland) — he's letting down the country by not resigning. He should resign. He's betraying our fishermen and it's an absolute scandal.

The European Union are not our friends — they are our enemies, they want to destroy us, they want to break up Great Britain. We didn't make a great deal of fuss about the problems they're having in Spain with the Catalunians — we could easily have done that — but the EU is not allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. And that's why they haven't interfered in Spain but they seem very happy to intervene in Northern Ireland.

Then the Irish Republic are not our friends, we have given them enormous amounts of money when they went bust. Quite frankly they would pull the rug from under our feet — they're just out to get us as well. It's a disgrace. And for the PM to allow the country to be embarrassed like this — she's not fit for office.

The French have enormous problems have enormous problems having to sell their goods — they have to compete with Australia, New Zealand, all over the world. We don't have to drink French wine, it's not in their interest for Britain not to be drinking it. We're one of the biggest consumers of champagne. And their cars — the Germans want to sell their cars but of course Japanese will be infinitely cheaper if we are out of the European Union. We need to leave without a deal and we'll make deals with countries all around the world.

The views expressed in this article are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

DISCUSSION_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

When you look up the meaning of 'BREXIT' you get this, "a blend of the words 'British' or 'Britain' and 'exit". People now realise, thanks to Mrs May and her Government, with a little help from the European Union, it really means a disastrous and chaotic state of affairs. After two years of negotiations, 585 pages of a document and three hours in the House of Commons answering MP's questions, no one is really satisfied and we the public, are hardly any the wiser. In fact there is surely an opportunity for Cornish confectioners here for a 'Brexit Fudge'?

Some may even think that history is repeating itself and this is a re-run of Neville Chamberlain's 'piece of paper', which at least had the benefit of brevity going for it, if not integrity. For make no mistake the economic consequences of a disruption to forty percent of our foreign trade could be as threatening to Britain, as was the attempted military blockade in the the Second World War.

It would appear that European memories are short and goodwill for past deeds cannot be relied upon when it comes to negotiations to untangle the Gordian Knot; to break free of the Quantum Entanglement! The twenty-seven insist that if Britain truly wishes to be out, it cannot enjoy the economic advantages of the club and it knows it holds the ace hand, so indebted and interdependent have we become.

Whatever the pros or cons of the putative deal Mrs May has negotiated, and to which she has indelibly attached her own reputation, it appears to satisfy no one - not her own party, the opposition, the composite nations or the people - but no one can be surprised. Mrs May and the Conservatives particularly find themselves between a rock and a hard place but the other parties equally so. From the beginning this was a divisive issue with a divisive referendum solution. How could it be otherwise? That is what a bipolar 'yes' or 'no' answer does.

What is clear is that responsibility for it rests with the Conservative Government. The fact that David Cameron never revisited the Arctic, whilst deciding to create a new and irrelevant railway, should have been warning signs of superficiality and rash decision making. It is one thing to deliver a referendum, quite another to deal with the enormous consequences. Did he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword like Brutus, or was it more akin to Napoleon after Waterloo, running away from the sound of battle?

Either or neither, he clearly left it to others to clear up the mess and with the aid of the dark arts and unprincipled behaviour, Mrs May was passed the poisoned chalice that she appeared to accept with alacrity. So we ended up with a pro-EU PM leading the retreat, who subsequently reneged on every one of her own 'red lines' - hardly a recipe for success. Some might even suggest darkly that it was designed to fail, and Mrs May who proved herself a safe pair of hands for the deep state at the Home Office - if such a thing exists - was chosen for that very purpose.

The suggestion that those in real control in both Britain and Europe never intended a real separation and that a hidden agenda has steered events, is hinted at from a number of directions.

Once the decision to leave was stated publicly, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or informally, 'Brexit Secretary', was appointed in the person of the smiling, jocular David Davis, hardly setting an appropriate tone for such serious negotiations. This did not bode well, indeed may have been intended to suggest such.

Of course he didn't last long and was replaced by the aspiring Dominic Raab who lasted an even briefer period, not able 'in good conscience' to promote the agreed terms. Now a veritable unknown, Stephen Barclay MP, fills the role but for how long and at what cost to his political career?

"To lose one Brexit secretary might be regarded as misfortune, to lose two carelessness" in Wilde's famous phrase, but the real reason is that neither could stomach the deceit that the agreed terms entailed. In David Davis' words, the proposed deal "has taken away all the benefits of Brexit" in addition to suggesting that the EU has intentionally prevaricated to make a clean break impossible.

One of the fundamental problems for the Brexit Secretary was that control of the negotiations was actually controlled somewhere else, namely in the Cabinet Office, and this is where the suggestion that the process was deeply influenced by the Security Services and perhaps a NATO orientated agenda that precludes separation, gains credence.

On the 24th October 2018, the crucial position of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, was filled by Sir Mark Sedwill when Baron Heywood of Whitehall (Jeremy Heywood) retired on health grounds. He died from lung cancer diagnosed in June 2017, on the 4th November, 2018. aged 56. Heywood was closely associated with Tony Blair in a number of contentious issues around the Iraq policy, failure to keep notes on the death of David Kelly, refusal to release notes of conversations between Blair and Bush and other matters of importance.

His replacement, Mark Sedwill has been deeply embedded in NATO-related security roles throughout his career. He was Mrs May's Permanent Secretary at the Home Office 2013 to 2017 when Mrs May was Home Secretary. Sedwill joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1989, and immediately operated in the Security Coordination Department and Gulf War Emergency Unit. His career was then closely connected to Iraq and Afghanistan war zones and from 2003 to 2005 was Deputy High Commissioner to Pakistan. From 2009 to 2010, Ambassador to Afghanistan. It is well known that such positions are frequently those of MI6 Officers. From 2017 he has been the National Security Adviser.

So I believe perhaps for the first time, the roles of Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and National Security Adviser have been combined in one person who in effect is, or has been, in effective control of the Brexit negotiations. In this context it is not hard to discern the the hidden but powerful hand of MI5/MI6.

One further important suggestion that separation from the European 'Leviathan' (in Thomas Hobbes' visualisation) is the entrenched military position both through NATO and by other agreements never properly discussed or examined by Parliament.

The scene was set in 2010 with the Lancaster House Agreement between British Prime Minister David Cameron - yes the same bloke that got us into the Brexit mess - and French President Nicholas Sarkozy for closer military ties with France for defence and security co-operation.

This continues largely under the radar so to speak. In January 2018 Mrs May announced a joint French/British 'expeditionary force' of 20,000 men to quickly and effectively face any threat by 2020. This must mean it is already in formation.

This runs alongside the largely unreported naval cooperation between the two. Also by 2020 an 'integrated carrier strike group', allowing British and French aircraft carrier interdependence and control.

Note how all this comes together around 2020 - a perfect vision for the future, although largely out of sight of the electorate that might otherwise not approve of this fundamental loss of sovereignty?

Britain's nuclear defence capability has always been subject to American veto, but now it would appear a fundamental realignment is taking place with Britain and France pooling their development and control systems, and this against the background music of Trump withdrawing from NATO and Macron suggesting Europe may need to defend itself against America as much as from Russia.

Where is all this going? Certainly Britain and France showed it was able to bomb a joint policy in Libya and Syria - with largely disastrous results, not to mention the claimed 'ISIS' inspired terrorist attacks rather conveniently and suspiciously targeted principally on France and Britain at points of political significance.

Mr Macron said France's defence and security co-operation with the UK had not been "challenged or revisited or impacted" by the vote for Brexit. Perhaps they both knew something the British public didn't: that leaving the EU was never really a viable option and would not be permitted?

If nothing else the debacle proves that Britain developed a system of representative government and eschewed referendums for a reason. How can the public decide a fiendishly difficult issue with a simple yes/no vote, particularly if it is not afforded adequate information of the consequences? Leaving aside the truism that 'minorities are always right', simple majorities are just that, simple, and leave behind them inevitable division. That is why most votes on constitutional issues require a larger majority to carry.

If as some, including leading figures in the Labour Party, are advocating a second referendum, this would obviously please the 'remainers' and the EU as the chaos and adverse consequences now apparent, would probably shift the balance back to 'remain'. However it would solve little and may even create greater unrest from those who felt cheated. Nor would it solve the fundamental issues with membership.

In trying to placate both sides of the argument, Mrs May has satisfied neither. She still has to get the plan through Parliament but it is clear she can only do so with the support of the opposition which seems on the present terms to be unlikely.

We should also have to go back to Pitt the Younger to find a parallel. Unless it is intended to impose an unelected dictatorship, parliamentary protocol requires resignation if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House. She says she is determined to stay on - under what conditions? Perhaps it is only the undesirability of the Leader of the Opposition and his team that is keeping her there?

Meanwhile Jacob Ree-Mogg has sent his letter to Sir Graham Brady, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, and published it, calling for a vote of no confidence in Mrs May. (1)

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum